You and I know that; trouble is every time someone says that the monopoly is stifling innovation with their patents and anticompetitive behavior, it points to its R&D spending and says "LOOOOOOOK!!!! Look at all that INNOVATION!"
is that Microsoft is Rich. And therefore:
1. Could've afforded to invest in thinking up new concepts for the new browser, rather than having reading an article on why people like firefox, and putting that stuff in IE7.
2. Will now parade around with a colossal advertising campaign about how IE7 takes you to the Next Generation of the Internet, or Enables the Future of Web Interaction to Integrate You Ass Off, or whatever.
This is a common usage of the term "respect" nowadays. It means basically "I acknowledge that X has made a lot of money by doing Y" and does not have the same connotations, e.g. "X has done Good Things A, B, and C"
I agree it'd be not-hard to code a bot that made 1BB/100 by playing tight. But unless you sit this thing down at 50/100 or higher you're not making much money from it.
You'd need a small army of such bots, and as parent says this would be hard to hide.
The alternative would be a bot that could make 5+ BB/100 at, say 5/10 and 10/20 tables.. I suspect this would be a very advanced machine. But it is theoretically possible.
Remember that one reason Big Blue beat Kasparov is that the human's previous games were all available for analysis by the computer. It had been *programmed to *beat *Kasparov.
A computer making serious cash against an ever-changing field of unknown quantities in a casino would require actual intelligence. The strategic environment is MUCH more dynamic in poker.
You need to tip your dealer, people. Not every time you drag a pot, necessarily, but if -the pot was particularly big, or -you won it by luck and are in a good mood
The dealer gets no part of the rake, but a wage. A kinda pitiful wage if you consider the training and experience a good dealer requires, and the kind of shit they have to put up with sometimes.
Tip. No, it does nothing to increase your chances, but neither does tipping a waiter
I love how he opens with a definition of "Linux" that essentially means "a bunch of people I'm vaguely aware & afraid of, but can't be bothered to learn about". I believe an early draft of the piece contained this line:
"I'm going to use the word 'Linux' to refer to people who do not receive paychecks and job descriptions from me, and whose motivations must therefore be completely mysterious"
Also I love how every other sentence in the article talks about "Linux"'s coordinated responses, oh, and penetrated schools, govts, and tech companies.
I mean, doesn't this come close to line of actual, clinical paranoia?
The problem is that the evolution of game development, like all software development, doesn't proceed in leaps -- big patentable breakthroughs, like a miracle drug. In industries progress consists of small improvements to the existing knowledge base, patents are demonstrably A Bad Thing -- not just bad for the poor little software developer guy (me), but for the state of that particular art.
See MIT paper
http://www.researchoninnovation.org/patent.pdf/
"They do this in a framework of laws and regulations and norms that we as a society fix with an aim to maximizing the public good of their work"
Do we, then? I haven't made any laws recently, have you? No?
Do you know anyone who has? Do you know why?
e.g. I know one guy: Orrin Hatch (first example off the top of my head). He wrote up a law called the INDUCE Act. Why? To maximize the public good of corporations' work? Maybe. Maybe not.
There have got to be some clever animators, etc. in here. I will host torrents of our entries (which I don't imagine would get much airtime in the "official" competition) at Artists for File Sharing, if someone can coach me on how to do it right (it's presently using blogTorrent, and not working very well from what I see).
"A group of individuals (mostly with anonymous emails) contacted all our customers."
I presume he's talking about sys-con's advertisers. This is not journalism in the fourth-estate sense; it is simply another cynical business model. Do what it takes to deliver up the eyeballs to the advertisers.
In this respect, I can't see why O'Gara was let go -- presumably it's because she indirectly caused what they think are DoS attacks, and you can't @#$$% with the revenue stream.
Now that I think about it, how come all MY brilliant writings do not appear in sys-con's publications. Only one explanation: Censorship! Pure and simple, cruel and UnAmerican!
I am ALMOST POSITIVE that the first amendment requires anyone who runs a magazine to print everything I say. How the hell did I overlook this grave injustice?!!
The problem I have with the FCC is that they could be as significant, in terms of shaping a 21st century economy, as the SEC or the Federal Reserve. And no one seems to care what their mandate or their agenda is.
Whether X, Y, or Z has made more money with open- or closed-source software is irrelevant. If you're considering making & selling software for a living, the thing to figure out is whether it's easier to make money with proprietary or open-source software. This is one of Bob Young's best points in Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution.
In my opinion, closed-source software was more profitable before the Internet, and this is no longer true. I think it might be easier to make some money by selling some little easy-to-use closed source app, but making Large Scale dollars with a Large Scale closed app is very tricky.
"Unless the authorities plug these gaps, the patenting process will descend into farce."
"given the ongoing problems with lack of searches for non-patent prior art, this will contribute to a further drop in quality of granted patents"
geez. Can't wait until we're yearning for the good ole days of the 2004-2005 patent season.
Slashdot Mirror
Might be to pour your last allotted beer into/onto the kegbot, thereby disabling him. Or maybe urine.
We need to start asking this loudly, over and over again, until someone answers.
"Renting switching equipment is not a good business model when switching equipment is ubiquitous"
-Eben Moglen
You and I know that; trouble is every time someone says that the monopoly is stifling innovation with their patents and anticompetitive behavior, it points to its R&D spending and says "LOOOOOOOK!!!! Look at all that INNOVATION!"
1. Profit! ... ?
2. Profit!
3. Profit!
4. Profit!
5.
6. Catch Up
This tendency of Joe's causes me to have to do a ton of extra work every time I build a site. Joe (and Bill) can bite me.
is that Microsoft is Rich. And therefore: 1. Could've afforded to invest in thinking up new concepts for the new browser, rather than having reading an article on why people like firefox, and putting that stuff in IE7. 2. Will now parade around with a colossal advertising campaign about how IE7 takes you to the Next Generation of the Internet, or Enables the Future of Web Interaction to Integrate You Ass Off, or whatever.
"View Selection Source" is one of the best things in firefox. is it in there?
It might take a month for all the new stuff to be available for free in a dozen other browsers.
Sorry, RIAA and friends, but you've got an expiration date on your usefulness, growing clearer each day.
This is a common usage of the term "respect" nowadays. It means basically "I acknowledge that X has made a lot of money by doing Y" and does not have the same connotations, e.g. "X has done Good Things A, B, and C"
maybe ... if you tip himher in advance. is that what you do?
I agree it'd be not-hard to code a bot that made 1BB/100 by playing tight. But unless you sit this thing down at 50/100 or higher you're not making much money from it. You'd need a small army of such bots, and as parent says this would be hard to hide. The alternative would be a bot that could make 5+ BB/100 at, say 5/10 and 10/20 tables .. I suspect this would be a very advanced machine. But it is theoretically possible.
Remember that one reason Big Blue beat Kasparov is that the human's previous games were all available for analysis by the computer. It had been *programmed to *beat *Kasparov.
A computer making serious cash against an ever-changing field of unknown quantities in a casino would require actual intelligence. The strategic environment is MUCH more dynamic in poker.
You need to tip your dealer, people. Not every time you drag a pot, necessarily, but if
-the pot was particularly big, or
-you won it by luck and are in a good mood
The dealer gets no part of the rake, but a wage. A kinda pitiful wage if you consider the training and experience a good dealer requires, and the kind of shit they have to put up with sometimes.
Tip. No, it does nothing to increase your chances, but neither does tipping a waiter
"I'm going to use the word 'Linux' to refer to people who do not receive paychecks and job descriptions from me, and whose motivations must therefore be completely mysterious"
Also I love how every other sentence in the article talks about "Linux"'s coordinated responses, oh, and penetrated schools, govts, and tech companies.
I mean, doesn't this come close to line of actual, clinical paranoia?
The problem is that the evolution of game development, like all software development, doesn't proceed in leaps -- big patentable breakthroughs, like a miracle drug. In industries progress consists of small improvements to the existing knowledge base, patents are demonstrably A Bad Thing -- not just bad for the poor little software developer guy (me), but for the state of that particular art. See MIT paper http://www.researchoninnovation.org/patent.pdf/
Do we, then? I haven't made any laws recently, have you? No?
Do you know anyone who has? Do you know why?
e.g. I know one guy: Orrin Hatch (first example off the top of my head). He wrote up a law called the INDUCE Act. Why? To maximize the public good of corporations' work? Maybe. Maybe not.
"indicators other than icons (e.g. attributes of the text itself such as typeface, bold, italic, underline, etc.) could be employed to identify ..."
There have got to be some clever animators, etc. in here. I will host torrents of our entries (which I don't imagine would get much airtime in the "official" competition) at Artists for File Sharing, if someone can coach me on how to do it right (it's presently using blogTorrent, and not working very well from what I see).
I wanna see that, it sounds hilarious!
I presume he's talking about sys-con's advertisers. This is not journalism in the fourth-estate sense; it is simply another cynical business model. Do what it takes to deliver up the eyeballs to the advertisers.
In this respect, I can't see why O'Gara was let go -- presumably it's because she indirectly caused what they think are DoS attacks, and you can't @#$$% with the revenue stream.
I picture Ned Beatty here. Anyone with me?
Now that I think about it, how come all MY brilliant writings do not appear in sys-con's publications. Only one explanation: Censorship! Pure and simple, cruel and UnAmerican! I am ALMOST POSITIVE that the first amendment requires anyone who runs a magazine to print everything I say. How the hell did I overlook this grave injustice?!!
The problem I have with the FCC is that they could be as significant, in terms of shaping a 21st century economy, as the SEC or the Federal Reserve. And no one seems to care what their mandate or their agenda is.
Whether X, Y, or Z has made more money with open- or closed-source software is irrelevant. If you're considering making & selling software for a living, the thing to figure out is whether it's easier to make money with proprietary or open-source software. This is one of Bob Young's best points in Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution.
In my opinion, closed-source software was more profitable before the Internet, and this is no longer true. I think it might be easier to make some money by selling some little easy-to-use closed source app, but making Large Scale dollars with a Large Scale closed app is very tricky.
"Unless the authorities plug these gaps, the patenting process will descend into farce." "given the ongoing problems with lack of searches for non-patent prior art, this will contribute to a further drop in quality of granted patents" geez. Can't wait until we're yearning for the good ole days of the 2004-2005 patent season.